Arielle Popstar

I know of a couple Tinies that thoroughly enjoy sitting in the laps of pretty girls when given the opportunity and would miss it if that wasn't available, even if they themselves don't use a human avatar.

Why not, how many thousands inworld now and ones who only log in once or twice a month have a clue as to the current new rules are outside of those who visit the Forums? If the Lab is wanting everyone to stop slexing, (which maybe they are) for everyone then I guess the sky has fallen, we just don't know it yet.

Considering any avatar can flip flop between a child and and adult avatar, they would have to specifically check if one is wearing an underage appearing avatar during the time of the sexting.

Still shows a problem. We're not told "Oh, you were AR'd so we are going to monitor your chat to see if there is any impropriety" Or "You been AR'd for suspected a*gplay, please refrain from that sort of activity as per ToS version blah blah blah. Any suspected or proven infractions will result in a lifetime ban" This smacks of the Lab intentionally looking for people to ban up to and including entrapment.

If they were monitoring the friends that Madi was talking about, then how is any conversation between partners safe?

Because there are many other types of texting that do NOT include slexing between my partner and I

First off, I don't know if we are talking a RL partner but a virtual one. Second, why is using a child avatar when one has a partner wrong? Seems short-sighted to me. Maybe I am biased because I often wear a younger avatar even when I am with my 15 year partner. I now have to remember the Lab might eavesdropping in on our private conversations? That seems all kinds of wrong to me.

Except in this particular instance, it was between a couple, presumably partnered, chatting with each other but in separate locations, in IM where both were banned. Not a random hookup with one potentially a pedofile, but a trusted partner. LL is scraping the barrel if they have to monitor the IM's between a couple to find some cause for banning. I commend you for trying to talk sense to LL but personally feel it is a lost cause. They are too quick to say one thing and do another. That is aside from how many in the Forums here that are looking to AR any potential minor appearing avatars. How many would like to stab you with an AR the moment you turn your back then blame you for not following the new rules?

Sure, 1 in 3 of my posts never see the light of day. Others are the result of a long hard think or mull over something said which is why I wait to answer some posts.

Rules shmules, get over it. Biggest majority of people in SL are of age and those who aren't, are almost. No need to AR somebody or anybody for that matter if they are not bothering you.

Any platform I know of does not make a distinction between Child or Adult presenting. One is either a child or an adult in real life and the degree of modesty required is based on that.

I am of the opinion that they threw out a half baked ToS change and left it to us to flesh out the details, hence the updating of the Faq. That is why they are reading the Forum to get some idea of the standards the Community is wanting and then converting the input to the law of the virtual land.

If historic IM's, ok. Live IM's, not so ok. Not like they are fighting a terrorist couple here.

The changes to Governance too in actually following their stated policies?

More likely is a spin the bottle scenerio to determine Child or Adult V

Regardless, it points out that LL is now banning on nothing more than their proactive monitoring of IM's. I can't see this ending well if word gets out.

Not much of a stretch considering the difference between a child and a woman is 1 second. 11:59 pm to 12:00 am on her birthday.

So there is much more dangerous risk of a ban then whether we have blue or pink underwear on or identify as male, female, or non binary.

I must have missed that post. You mean "considering" that the rumours were true?

I think the reality is that the vast majority couldn't give a hoot what colour they are as half the population is too impoverished to have much choice.

Which you have been poo poohing if I remember correctly as you didn't believe there was sufficient proof?

Wait, if she was in IM to her husband and in different locations, who and how did she get AR'ed? Are you saying LL monitored her private conversation?

So lesson is not to use the IM or local for sexy chat or really any chat as it could go to sexy in a sentence from one or the other. Too freaking dangerous if they going to be banning with no warning.

The trick is whether you still think it funny when it is directed at you

My thought is that the upper pic is of an older dog that in human terms would be in the later 30's. The lower one appears more feminine and I would peg as potentially up to 20 but is harder to really put an age to.